Plant noise and external lighting at Evans Halshaw Motors Ltd Crownhill, Milton Keynes

What was proposed

The application sought approval of plant noise levels and external lighting details required by two conditions of the permission.

“The application seeks the approval of details required by conditions 9 (detailed plant noise levels) and 10 (external lighting) of permission ref. PLN/2025/1862.”

Officer report

The site

The site was a former car showroom near homes and business units, and was allocated as employment land.

“The application site previously contained a vacant car showroom/ dealership with a main and secondary access from Watling Street. The site is approximately 60 metres from residential development located on the opposite side of Watling Street to the north/northeast, and approximately 220 metres from the nearest properties within Crownhill to the southwest. The site is located directly to the northwest of small business units located within Darin Court.”

“The site is allocated as employment land on the Policies Map of Plan:MK.”

Officer report

Planning history

Earlier permissions approved the development and façade changes, works had started, and an enforcement case was open over landscaping details.

“Works on the site have started, with the variation of condition approval being implemented. As works have begun, including the structure of the building along with the appearance of the external facade, without the approval of details related to condition 7 prior to works above slab level, an enforcement case has been opened. This application has been submitted in response.”

“Prior to the first occupation of the development, detailed noise levels from mechanical plants and any required noise mitigation measures shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in full accordance with any approved measures prior to first occupation/use of the buildings, and be maintained for the lifetime of the development.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the submitted noise and lighting details were acceptable and specialist officers raised no objections.

“The submitted details outline the plant noise levels and mechanical equipment as well as their location within the site. The Plant Noise Impact Assessment (dated 24/06/2026) submitted confirms that the plant noise levels would not result in undue harm to the nearest residential properties.”

“The submitted External Lighting Report sets out the proposed lighting details within the main car park and loading yard along with the lighting on the external façade of the building. The submitted details demonstrate the light spill from the proposed lighting would be appropriate for the setting and would not adversely impact protected and priority species.”

Officer report

Objections received

Objections raised discrepancies in the noise information, while several other concerns were outside this application’s scope.

“Discrepancies on the submitted information between the heat-recovery unit assessment model and submitted drawings…”

“The below matters raised are not material planning considerations, which cannot be considered in the determination of this application. These relate to:”

Officer report

Who spoke

Councillor Marlow, a parish council representative and another speaker opposed or questioned the application’s lighting, noise and separate applications.

Members’ debate

Members questioned cumulative impacts and possible departures from approved plans but accepted that the decision had to focus on material planning matters.

“Members voiced frustration regarding the applicant's conduct and repeated amendments but stressed that the Committee was unable to penalise applicants simply for poor behaviour where planning requirements were met and that this was not a material planning consideration. The Member noted that the lighting design involved downward-facing lighting and that ecology officers had accepted the proposal and was therefore minded to support the recommendation.”

Minutes

The vote

The committee carried the motion to grant permission subject to compliance with the details in the main report.

“Upon being put to the vote, the motion was carried. RESOLVED – That permission be granted subject to the compliance with the details set out in the main report. THE MEETING WAS CLOSED AT 21:42”

Minutes